2) When two Christians differ on their interpretations, how do you determine who (if either) has it right?

The same way I would approach any disagreemnt: by looking at the arguments presented by each side, evaluating those arguments, studying the relevant background information, and applying logic.

Quote

3) Why would a loving, benevolent god write a book that required interpretation? That two equally devout believers are capable of interpreting differently?

First of all, God did not write the gospels. They were written by apostles Matthew and John and by Luke and Mark, companions of apostles. As to why the Bible requires interpretation, all books require interpretation. You might as well ask why it contains words. Third, you say "that two equally devout believers are capable of interpreting differently" as if that was a bad thing, but it isn't necessarily.

However, the question of believers interpreting things differently is irrelevant to this thread and the discussion of the video. The video takes a passage that all believers interpret the same way and misinterprets that passage. I'm looking for someone who can explain why I should take such a video seriously, but it doesn't seem like anyone wants to do so.

I tried to get you to see a different (sane? rational?) perspective. Pick someone you love. Imagine killing him or her. Is that consistent with what you think of as "love"? It is not, for me anyway. Killing them is the last thing I would want to do to the people I love. I can think of a few exceptions, but they tend to relate to end of life conditions and terminal illnesses.

Your interpretation of jesus H's directive to love your enemy seems to me to fly in the face of what he meant.

Quote from: Matt5:43-48

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

you are an amusing fellow, Alex. You want to call the action of soldiers in wartime "love". That's stretching it pretty badly to attempt to defend your claims.

Second, you want to claim that something is "straightforward" in the bible. Again, you all do this, want to claim that it should be "obvious" that you are correct in your individual intepretation. We have another Christian here, Micah, who also claims the same thing and like you has no evidnce to back themselves up. And to someone who wasn't familiar with the colloquialism, "raining cats and dogs" would have no "logical" meaning whatsoever.

People will question your claims because they are bad. Not because they can't defend the video. You want to pick and choose which verses are literal and which are metaphor and you have no better reason to do so other than some make you uncomfortable if they are literal because to a 21st century mind, they sound ridiculous or even evil at times. You want to excuse this bronze age myth so you can cling to your belief in it since you have invested so much in it.

Quote

First of all, God did not write the gospels. They were written by apostles Matthew and John and by Luke and Mark, companions of apostles. As to why the Bible requires interpretation, all books require interpretation. You might as well ask why it contains words. Third, you say "that two equally devout believers are capable of interpreting differently" as if that was a bad thing, but it isn't necessarily.

Ah no they weren't. That's a nice little myth that has no basis in evidence. I don't know whether all books require intepreation. A good mystery means nothign more than a good story. and yes, it is a bad thing if two people who profess to be Christians say that their supposed holy book means different things. I hear from Christians that it takes the holy spirit to really "understand" the book, and those who say this have differeing ideas on what this HS has told them. Why should I think either has any kind of "truth" at all?

Quote

However, the question of believers interpreting things differently is irrelevant to this thread and the discussion of the video. The video takes a passage that all believers interpret the same way and misinterprets that passage. I'm looking for someone who can explain why I should take such a video seriously, but it doesn't seem like anyone wants to do so.

Iit is not irrelevant to the discussion since you are the theist who wants to claim that they and they alone know what God "really" meant. All believers may not believe in the same way but that is the base problem, why can't you all get your story straight when you all claim to have the "truth"? I could make a video to address the claims of all stripes of Christians, tailoring it to each group who takes a particular piece as metaphor or literal and still not get an answer of why any of them should be believed.

PS, I am interested in how you respond to Screwtape's mentioning of the bible with what JC did say about loving your enemies. Again, where is the part that says killing them is okay?

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

No it is not relevant here. Screwtape didn't make the videos. I didn't make the videos. The person that made the videos actually has very little to do with the forum.

So you have no reason to abuse us with condescending language for something someone else did.

Thanks for letting me know. The video itself told me that the maker would respond to comments at YouTube. But in the comments I learned that he's decided to turn tail and run. In his profile he says that I should visit this website for further discussion. I came to the website and clicked on "contact" to send him an email, only to learn that he's decided not to respond to most emails either. Instead he directs me to this forum, and now I learn he's decided not to show his head in the forum either. I guess I shouldn't be terribly surprised to learn that he's not willing to make any defense of his video anywhere. If I released such a lousy video, I'd probably do exactly the same thing.

However, the stated purporse of this forum is for discussion of the videos, as well as the websites, so I believe I'll continue mentioning it even if you tell me not to.

Quote

Edit: Also, I would like to point out that this isn't a very "Christian" attitude you have.

One of the nice things about being a Christian is that I only have to seek Jesus' approval, and thus I can brush off insults from anyone else.

Second, you want to claim that something is "straightforward" in the bible. Again, you all do this, want to claim that it should be "obvious" that you are correct in your individual intepretation. We have another Christian here, Micah, who also claims the same thing and like you has no evidnce to back themselves up. And to someone who wasn't familiar with the colloquialism, "raining cats and dogs" would have no "logical" meaning whatsoever.

I have a co-worker that speaks fluent English but was born and raised in the Philippines. She would not understand "raining cats and dogs" at all.

Logged

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell

One of the nice things about being a Christian is that I only have to seek Jesus' approval, and thus I can brush off insults from anyone else.

hmmm, really? I seem to recall, Matthew 25 which seems to indicate that one has to be nice to one's fellow humans to get Jesus' approval. You haven't been that, with your breezing in here making baseless claims, becoming abusive when shown you are wrong, etc. The video may not be perfect, it may assume that Christians believe in certain ways, but any way a theist believes is open for question since you cannot demonstrate that your version is any better.

Logged

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

Thanks for letting me know. The video itself told me that the maker would respond to comments at YouTube. But in the comments I learned that he's decided to turn tail and run.

Lol, he probably got tired of dealing with bone-headed Christians[1]. His videos are compelling arguments, but, as I said before, there is no need for absolute perfection in the logic to show that Christianity is utter nonsense. You are simply setting an impossible goal for the proofs so that it doesn't damage your beliefs.

The Christian God is an obvious fabrication, so the proofs are good enough to show this conclusion is more likely than not. The standard for proof that your god doesn't exist is much lower than the standard for proving that your god does exist.

But that was not what we were talking about, was it? We were talking about whether killing people you love was consistent with what love is. This has nothing to do with that.

Actually, that is exactly what we're talking about. The video specifically discusses the military and warfare as its sole "evidence" on this point. I started the thread as a discussion about the video. If you haven't seen the video, which is the topic of the thread, then on what grounds do you go around telling me what the topic of the thread is? The topic of the thread is the claims of the video, and your constant attempts to change the subject are as good as an admission that the video cannot be rationally defended.

Nevertheless, I'll answer your question. There are many types of love. In the original Greek of the New Testament, the "love your enemies" lines all use agape. This indicates not a good, happy feeling towards people, but rather a recognition that those people are a part of creation with free will and motivations like my own. So, if I were in the army in the American Revolution fighting the British, I might feel agape towards the British soldiers. I'd recognize that each one is an individual, that he is not fighting because he hates me or because he's evil, but rather he fights out of a sense of patriotic duty towards his country just like I fight for mine. Nevertheless, I might, in certain circumstances kill him. So that answers your question about whether I could love someone and kill them. Love between family members would be either phileo or storge, both of which mean something like "affection" or "familial love". That is an entirely different concept, and there's no logic in your attempt to prove something about agape using an example of phileo or storge.

Do you have anything you want to discuss besides your dislike of said video, like, oh, I dunno, the issues that everyone has raised about your special biblical decoder ring?

I started the thread to discuss the video and challenge people to defend what it says. It seems we've reached a consensus that the things it says cannot be rationally defended, and I'd be happy to leave it at that. As for magic decoder rings, I've never claimed to have one.

I have a co-worker that speaks fluent English but was born and raised in the Philippines. She would not understand "raining cats and dogs" at all.

Nevertheless, if she heard someone say, "It's raining cats and dogs," she would probably be smart enough to know that the person isn't literally claiming that furry pets are falling from the sky. If so, she'd have demonstrated a great deal more sense than the video maker.

Nevertheless, if she heard someone say, "It's raining cats and dogs," she would probably be smart enough to know that the person isn't literally claiming that furry pets are falling from the sky. If so, she'd have demonstrated a great deal more sense than the video maker.

No. In fact, she is regularly confused by these kinds of comments. I have to explain them to her, because in Tagalog they don't use language like that. She is also Christian who subscribes to a strictly literal interpretation of the KJV.

It's actually kind of funny to see her reaction when I say I'm going to run to the store and she thinks I am literally going to RUN to the store.

How does the bible deal with people that don't understand these linguistic constructs?

Logged

So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. --Bertrand Russell

One of the nice things about being a Christian is that I only have to seek Jesus' approval,

so um, how exactly does he give approval?

and wouldn't your god just eliminate offending video, along with all the other nasty shit hes done to humans? for example, having one of his followers tell me that I will fry in hell for not paying attention to his invisibility.

:shrug

Logged

The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

The video takes a passage that all believers interpret the same way and misinterprets that passage.

Really? Every single believer? Or just the True ChristiansTM that interpret it the way you do?

The question you've shied away from is exactly HOW you differentiate between metaphor and literal truth, when the subject discussed is so far away from anyone's experience.

"...sell you possessions and give to the poor...". Do you still have a computer? Why?

"...gouge your eye out and throw it away..." Have your eyes never caused sin in your heart? Why do you still have both your eyes? (An assumption there on my part, I confess).

"...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all..." Can you drink poison? Why not?

You wanted to discuss the video. These are the Biblical passages mentioned in the video.

Now to me.....the second one (for example) seems quite literal. Reading the context "better to lose a part of your body" its quite clearly a physical instruction. Why do so many Christians have two hands and two eyes?

Additional point: Matthew 6 makes it clear that good works should not be broadcast. If that is the case, why have I heard of Christian Aid, to take one example?

But that was not what we were talking about, was it? We were talking about whether killing people you love was consistent with what love is. This has nothing to do with that.

Actually, that is exactly what we're talking about. The video specifically discusses the military and warfare as its sole "evidence" on this point. I started the thread as a discussion about the video. If you haven't seen the video, which is the topic of the thread, then on what grounds do you go around telling me what the topic of the thread is?

I wasn't telling you the topic of the thread. It is your thread so you should know better than anyone. But conversations don't always stay on topic. I was telling you where I thought our conversation was. My grounds for that was being a participant and the person who asked a question.

The topic of the thread is the claims of the video, and your constant attempts to change the subject are as good as an admission that the video cannot be rationally defended.

I've not tried to change the subject. I've tried to address your issues. When you say something that seems to me like it is out of left field, I am going to tell you that is not what we are talking about. If you'd stop responding like such a belligerent cock this would be a much easier conversation. You know, apply some of that agape.

Nevertheless, I'll answer your question. There are many types of love. ...So that answers your question about whether I could love someone and kill them.

Then I would say we have a vocabulary problem. The English language does not communicate the meaning well enough. The bible as written in English (any language, really) is misleading. Agape is not love. Love is not agape. According to Got Questions:

Quote

The Greek word agape is often translated "love" in the New Testament. How is "agape love" different from other types of love? The essence of agape love is self-sacrifice. Unlike our English word “love,” agape is not used in the Bible to refer to romantic or sexual love. Nor does it refer to close friendship or brotherly love, for which the Greek word philia is used. Nor does agape mean charity, a term which the King James translators carried over from the Latin. Agape love is unique and is distinguished by its nature and character.

Agape is love which is of and from God, whose very nature is love itself.

Bold mine. If you go on to read the rest of it, it uses the word "love" almost exclusively and interchangeably with the real love. It is very misleading. It also sounds preposterous to me. Sounds typical of woo-ists who redefine well established words to suit their needs. Agape is not anything like love.

The last paragraph says this:

Quote

In the same way, we are to love others sacrificially. Jesus gave the parable of the Good Samaritan as an example of sacrifice for the sake of others, even for those who may care nothing at all for us, or even hate us, as the Jews did the Samaritans. Sacrificial love is not based on a feeling, but a determined act of the will, a joyful resolve to put the welfare of others above our own.

The rest of that paragraph is a laugh-riot. It says we fallen mortals are incapable of agape, but yhwh fills up our hearts with it when we are born again, so only true xians can feel agape. Arrogant and naive all at once. But tearing agape apart is not quite the topic.

So how again is love defined as "self sacrifice" consistent with killing the other man? It sounds to me that if jesus H felt agape the way you think it works, he would have nailed a couple other Jews and a Roman or two to the cross instead of sacrificing himself. Your agape sounds more like Rambo-agape.

hmmm, really? I seem to recall, Matthew 25 which seems to indicate that one has to be nice to one's fellow humans to get Jesus' approval. You haven't been that, with your breezing in here making baseless claims, becoming abusive when shown you are wrong, etc. The video may not be perfect, it may assume that Christians believe in certain ways, but any way a theist believes is open for question since you cannot demonstrate that your version is any better.

Oddly enough, I seem to recall that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said: "People will hate you and tell all kinds of horrible lies about you because you have chosen to follow Me. When they do so, you should rejoice and be glad." So by making these videos, the maker has helped the words of Jesus to come true once again, and the same might be said for certain posts on this forum.

Those youtube videos have gotten...how many millions of viewings? They must be pretty damn effective to be that popular.

Okay, so your logic is that if something is seen many times, then that proves something positive about how good that thing is. So tell me then, how many copies of the Bible are out there? 6 billion is the last estimate that I've heard. The Bible has been read a great deal more than any other book ever, and is far more popular than any video or anything else. So by your logic, the bible is therefore the best work ever. Of course, now that I've pointed this out, I expect that you'll soon be backtracking on your claim that something which is popular must also be effective.

The question you've shied away from is exactly HOW you differentiate between metaphor and literal truth, when the subject discussed is so far away from anyone's experience.

I have not shied away from that question at all, but have answered it clearly in posts 26 and 30.

Quote

"...sell you possessions and give to the poor...". Do you still have a computer? Why?

Funny you should ask, I'm currently typing this on a public library computer because I can't do it at home. But I do give to the poor and I know a great many Christians who have given away a great deal and sometimes everything to others.

Quote

"...gouge your eye out and throw it away..." Have your eyes never caused sin in your heart? Why do you still have both your eyes? (An assumption there on my part, I confess).

I already answered this question in the first post of this thread, but since you apparently missed it, I'll just quote it again. "So similarly, when Jesus said: 'If your hand causes you to sin, cut if off', he was not advising us to get a saw and cut off our hands, but rather to remove any portion of our personal attitudes or behavior that was leading us into sin." Same for eyes.

Quote

"...when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all..." Can you drink poison? Why not?

First of all, it is likely that Jesus did not say this. The very ending of the final chapter of Mark's gospel, from verses 16:9 onward, does not appear in the earliest manuscripts of that gospel. It is also linguistically different from the rest of the gospel in several ways. Second, even if it is an accurate record of what Jesus said, the video carefully trims the passage in order to mislead the audience about what it's saying. If you read the passage in its proper context, you will see that Jesus is addressing the eleven remaining disciples directly and discussing the signs that will accompany believers whom they convert in the apostolic age, not all believers for all times. In 1 Cor 12, Paul makes clear that gifts promised to some members of the church do not necessarily apply to all.

Quote

Now to me.....the second one (for example) seems quite literal. Reading the context "better to lose a part of your body" its quite clearly a physical instruction. Why do so many Christians have two hands and two eyes?

It is not "quite clearly a physical instruction" any more than "raining cats and dogs" is quite clearly describing falling housepets. So if the erroneous interpretation seems quite clear to you, I guess it's because you're notas good at interpreting things as the audience that Jesus was addressing.

Quote

Additional point: Matthew 6 makes it clear that good works should not be broadcast. If that is the case, why have I heard of Christian Aid, to take one example?

One should not brag about doing charitable deeds, but nonetheless most charities need a level of publicity in order to function effectively by bringing in funds and volunteers and making themselves known to those who need aid.

Those youtube videos have gotten...how many millions of viewings? They must be pretty damn effective to be that popular.

Okay, so your logic is that if something is seen many times, then that proves something positive about how good that thing is. So tell me then, how many copies of the Bible are out there? 6 billion is the last estimate that I've heard. The Bible has been read a great deal more than any other book ever, and is far more popular than any video or anything else. So by your logic, the bible is therefore the best work ever.

No, that's not "his logic". "His logic" is that something that has a lot of viewings/attention is effective in achieving the purpose the viewed subject set out to do. I don't think that's necessarily accurate, but I guess that depends on what one thinks the objective of the popular item (in this case the video) is. If the objective, which I think it is, is to convert Christians to atheists, then I'm not entirely sure if it's effective despite its popularity/many viewings. If the objective is to get people to think about how Christians aren't always what they seem, then perhaps it is effective? We can't really tell without more data. If the objective is simply to draw attention or get people to discuss the topic, then perhaps that video is very effective? But I digress..

Quote

Of course, now that I've pointed this out, I expect that you'll soon be backtracking on your claim that something which is popular must also be effective.

Why would he do that? The bible was and still is effective at spreading Christianity, right? That doesn't mean that Christianity is true, of course (appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy and all that). So why would he feel the need to backtrack it? You've strengthened his point (that I didn't think was that strong to begin with). Worse, you've misinterpreted his statement. Which is ironic, considering the topic.

Bold mine. If you go on to read the rest of it, it uses the word "love" almost exclusively and interchangeably with the real love. It is very misleading. It also sounds preposterous to me. Sounds typical of woo-ists who redefine well established words to suit their needs. Agape is not anything like love.

So wait a minute, giving precise and clear definitions makes this webpage "misleading"? I actually think that the page you linked to is very clear and lucid. As for whether agape is love, the naswer is yes. Just look up "love" in a good English dictionary and you'll see several definitions, one of which is pretty close to the definition that you're unhappy with. What's your complaint?

Quote

So how again is love defined as "self sacrifice" consistent with killing the other man? It sounds to me that if jesus H felt agape the way you think it works, he would have nailed a couple other Jews and a Roman or two to the cross instead of sacrificing himself. Your agape sounds more like Rambo-agape.

And there's the rub, as has been pointed out. You may want to consider these questions....

1) How do you know how to correctly interpret Jesus' words?

I don't claim to have a completely correct understanding of everything Jesus said, but some examples, including the relevant ones from this video, are quite straightforward and I interpret them as I'd interpret everything else. Every day I have scores of conversations, read several books or articles, watch TV, and listen to the radio. As I do so I encounter figurative language all the time and I interpret it using common sense.

Your "common sense" may not be "common sense" to others. After all, you acknowledge that there are other Christians who interpret things differently than you do. And my "logic" and "common sense" tells me that the bible is nothing but a bunch of fictional tales created by ignorant people. Does stating just that satisfy you? If it doesn't, why should anything you state here satisfy us? Nothing you've said here is constructive to answer the question HOW to interpret the bible correctly.

Quote

Assuming that you're a defender of the video, the question can be turned around. The video's entire case is based on the assumption that Jesus meant each of the quoted phrases to be taken literally, and based on this claims that Jesus was "crazy" and "insane". Lose that ridiculous interpretation of Jesus' words and the whole video falls apart and looks rather pathetic. So how exactly do you, on behalf of the video maker, know how to correctly interpret Jesus' words?

Surely, the burden of proof is not on us to show that when someone says "cut off your hand" he doesn't mean "cut off your hand", but he means "deal with your inner demons without actually cutting off your hand, sinner!"? Or any of the other dozens if not hundreds if not thousands of interpretations one can think of when they apply their "common sense" or whatever? Where is your evidence that this particular interpretation is "ridiculous" and that your interpretation is the correct one?

Was the great flood, practically genocide, a metaphor? Or do you really believe that god literally drowned/killed nearly every single human being because they became "wicked" and didn't appreciate your/their god? Is hell, where non believers suffer for eternity for the severe crime of not believing in this particular god, a metaphor? "Cutting off your hand" from a book with such similar atrocities in it doesn't sound that far fetched to me, actually.

I'm looking for someone who can explain why I should take such a video seriously, but it doesn't seem like anyone wants to do so.

You don't have to take this video seriously. Just like you don't take some/many of the other interpretations/denominations of Christianity seriously. And, unfortunately, much like how you can't explain to us why we should take your interpretation or even Christianity itself seriously. But you just do (take one specific interpretation and just run with it), so why can't the creator of the video take one interpretation and run with it as well?

Are Christians generally taught to preempt every talk with religious aspects with "First things first: I just want to say that I am of x denomination and I don't interpret the bible the same way you do. In fact, I think that some of the things you believe about god and Jesus are at best inaccurate and at worst ridiculous. So whenever I refer to Christians, Christianity, God and Jesus, I usually mean my interpretation of them, not yours, which I don't acknowledge as correct"? If they don't, why do you expect the creator of this video to do so? Especially when the burden of proof is on you? And you've failed to provide any kind of evidence to show that your interpretation is accurate?

Oh, and welcome to the forum It's high time we have some fresh blood spilled around here!*